Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

It is. See Rich's post for a great example of some of the things you are paying for when you buy a Steinway. He brings up quite a few areas of "branding" that I did not mention.

My basic point is, within a certain small margin, the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs, etc. are all approximately the same. So the greatest variability in the price of a piano is the actual brand itself.

These costs are NOT the same. In some factories the instruments are hand-made by highly skilled labor, while in other the "labor" is done by CNC. Labor rates at Steinway as well as in Germany are exponetially higher than in China or Indonesia.

Manufacturing any of the top tier pianos is far more expensive than manufacturing a more mass-produced product. Labor costs per piano are FAR greater in a hand-made piano.

You bring up a very good point that I had not specifically included. Thank you.

Let's look at it: if I understand what you are saying correctly, in purchasing a top-tier piano, what we are actually purchasing is an outdated method of manufacture that is far more expensive than more modern forms of manufacture, but not necessarily any better. Do I have that correct?

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

Derulux: I hope that you are not seriously arguing that paying people a decent salary to make glorious pianos is outdated. I also hope that you are not seriously arguing that a Fazioli, Steinway, or Bosendorfer is "not necessarily any better" than the cheapest mass-produced piano. And just think what your arguments would mean for the luthiers of the world!

I apologize if I have had a sense of humor failure here. It is hard to tell from your posts whether you mean it or not. I am inclined to think that Steve Cohen is correct in taking you seriously and in his response to your remarkable implication that labor costs are the same all over the world, and it is hard to imagine that anyone could neglect this fact and make any argument that depends on such a profoundly ignorant view.

if I understand what you are saying correctly, in purchasing a top-tier piano, what we are actually purchasing is an outdated method of manufacture that is far more expensive than more modern forms of manufacture, but not necessarily any better. Do I have that correct?

Sure - you have it correct....except for the part about "not necessarily any better." Case in point - Kawai RX series vs. Shigeru Kawai.

According to Larry Fines pianobook, after a certain point costs increase dramatically for even tiny improvements in quality. Therefore, pianos that strive for quality above a pricepoint are going to be dramatically more expensive. According to Steinways own advertising, they strive to make the best piano possible and sell it at a price consistant to the quality. Many companies strive for price point above quality. There has been a good bit of talk here about Hailun and if they were able to produce a piano that would compete with the best of the best. That's not the reason for Hailuns existance. They are meeting their goals just as they are, making a decent piano at an affordable price. That's much different than Steinway, Bosendorfer, Fazoli, Ravenscroft, Stewart and Sons, etc. To say that a Steinway, or Fazoli uses out of date manufacturing is a total mischaraterization. A more accurate statement would be, Steinway and other top tier companies use artisan hand labor and a lot of it.

All I am saying is that it is misleading to say that a piano was made in the USA if it was not made in the USA. This is true with any product in any genre. If a salesperson induces a person to buy a piano by saying that the piano was made in the USA, and the piano was made elsewhere, it is misleading.

That is ALL I am saying. Of course the truthful sharing of truthful information is not misleading.

I've never understood how Mason & Hamlin can still claim, with a straight face, to be Made in the USA, given that their iron plates, piano actions, and the cases for their uprights are not.

Derulux: I hope that you are not seriously arguing that paying people a decent salary to make glorious pianos is outdated. I also hope that you are not seriously arguing that a Fazioli, Steinway, or Bosendorfer is "not necessarily any better" than the cheapest mass-produced piano. And just think what your arguments would mean for the luthiers of the world!

I apologize if I have had a sense of humor failure here. It is hard to tell from your posts whether you mean it or not. I am inclined to think that Steve Cohen is correct in taking you seriously and in his response to your remarkable implication that labor costs are the same all over the world, and it is hard to imagine that anyone could neglect this fact and make any argument that depends on such a profoundly ignorant view.

It was not ignorance, my friend. It was simply a lack of addressing the entire topic in my original post. I admit this discussion has gone directions I did not intend or foresee, but I am happy to indulge. I have thought this through thoroughly, but I'd rather not post a book in the forum, so I try to stick to one topic at a time. However, the issue is so deeply complex, that I can see how it might come off that way. For that, I do apologize. The last thing that I am (or desire to be) is ignorant. I am the first person to either A) admit I don't know something, or B) stand corrected when someone does correct one of my inaccurate facts. (I actually do research nearly all of them before I post.)

Yes, I intend the train of thought to be serious and also coherent (which, per above, it might be a little short). I feel very strongly that there are some entrenched ideals that are completely challengeable and I am simply doing that. I understand if it is not a popular sentiment; I simply hope I bring up some thoughts people may not have considered before.

Since you bring it up, let's discuss decent salary. The technicians make one. The executives (which I have previously mentioned) do not. I would never begin to insinuate we should take a dollar or a dime away from a technician whose job is vital to the instrument. I do believe executives are egregiously overpaid.

Herein lies a conundrum, a paradox if you will. In order to make the piano more affordable to the American consumer, we must do one of two things: manufacture them where it is cheaper to do so, or mechanize and automate the process. This will allow the companies to sell the piano cheaper. However, manufacture overseas takes away American jobs and American income, so unless that person can find another job, the end might not be exactly what the means intended. (See reason #374 on this list of "why are we in a recession right now")

So, my original argument is rather simple: I have stated in the beginning that what you pay for firstly and mostly in a top tier piano is the brand, the name. This is, by the way, common of all brand-name products and luxury goods. I had thought this would be an accepted fact, but it has been very surprising to see the number of people who do not know this or believe it. Everything else about the products can be done for nearly the same cost. These companies simply choose not to. A "handmade" instrument is a luxury good, and can be charged at a luxury price. No one would pay $135k for a machine-made Steinway or $175+k for a Bosendorfer if it was machine-made. Can a machine make it? I don't doubt it. They make just as intricate products in other industries. Should a machine make it? This is a different conversation entirely, and one I did not initially mean to entertain because it is more subjective..

I hope this helps to clear up some of the things I have been saying?

Originally Posted By: pianolance

According to Steinways own advertising, they strive to make the best piano possible and sell it at a price consistant to the quality.

Translation: marketing. I'm not saying they don't accomplish what they set out to accomplish; Steinways are fine pianos. But this is a marketing line.

Originally Posted By: pianolance

A more accurate statement would be, Steinway and other top tier companies use artisan hand labor and a lot of it.

Translation: they can charge more. This is a common tactic of a luxury good producer in order to raise prices and, as a result, increase margin. Make fewer of them. Make them "hand made". Do this, and you can charge a fortune IF your brand name is consistent with your desired image.

Edited by Derulux (08/07/1202:00 PM)

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

Derulux, my friend, I am sure you are quite a nice fellow, but may I remind you that you said this:

"My basic point is, within a certain small margin, the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs, etc. are all approximately the same. So the greatest variability in the price of a piano is the actual brand itself."

And this is simply wrong. Sorry, it is just wrong.

You are correct in stating that luxury goods carry larger dollar margins than other goods (typically) - perhaps not larger percentage margins however, mind you. And specifically in the case of Steinway the largest dollar gross margin (and percentage margin) goes to the dealer - not the factory. That is just a fact. And that is due to marketing, in that you are correct.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but aren't you the person who attempted to "analyze" the Steinway annual report for us just a short time ago? I hate to tell you this but your "facts" were quite a bit off the mark. As the old saying goes - "Don't quit your day job"

Derulux, my friend, I am sure you are quite a nice fellow, but may I remind you that you said this:

"My basic point is, within a certain small margin, the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs, etc. are all approximately the same. So the greatest variability in the price of a piano is the actual brand itself."

And this is simply wrong. Sorry, it is just wrong.

You are correct in stating that luxury goods carry larger dollar margins than other goods (typically) - perhaps not larger percentage margins however, mind you. And specifically in the case of Steinway the largest dollar gross margin (and percentage margin) goes to the dealer - not the factory. That is just a fact. And that is due to marketing, in that you are correct.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but aren't you the person who attempted to "analyze" the Steinway annual report for us just a short time ago? I hate to tell you this but your "facts" were quite a bit off the mark. As the old saying goes - "Don't quit your day job"

Hello, there. I certainly hope that I am an agreeable person, but I leave that up to others' perception. I am perfectly fine disagreeing with someone, and do so quite often on subjective matters. However, I tend to do one of two things when people misquote facts: get roiled up or walk away. I know I should just walk away every time, and this is why: "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with expertise." (I thought you might appreciate the saying, since you used one of your own.) But I don't always do it.

Now then, you are correct. I did say that. I amended it in a later post (I am not above amending or changing statements as they are corrected/brought into new light), but that seems to have been ignored. So, I will attempt to do so again.

I said this:

Quote:

My basic point is, within a certain small margin, the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs, etc. are all approximately the same. So the greatest variability in the price of a piano is the actual brand itself.

For clarity's sake, everyone would be correct in saying I probably should have said this:

Quote:

My basic point is, within a certain small margin, the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs, etc. should all be approximately the same. So the greatest variability in the price of a piano is the actual brand itself.

With that subtle change in wording, the rest of my diatribe would seem to hold. However, as I said, some people have brought up good discussion, and I enjoy it. So I hope we don't stop here..

One more saying, this one to counter yours: "If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

"Are all" and "Should all be" are entirely different concepts and change the whole premise.

As pointed out often, labor costs are a significant factor and subject to many complex factors.

Material costs "are all" or "should all be" applies to neither premise. Check the costs of graded lumber and you will find significant differences.

The Steinway 'brand' has proven itself to be one of the very finest pianos ever built. It is able to command the price. It is sold in a free market economy. What any given product is "worth" is more than the sum, monetarily, of its parts. I use "parts" to include more than just the components which comprise any given piano.

I think this is, hopefully, a discussion about a subject that is, or should be, of interest to members of this forum.

And to comment on your revised statement, I will say this without getting into details of how I arrive at this - the difference in manufacturing cost alone between a Japanese 7 foot grand and a Steinway B may be as much as 100%. Said another way, a Steinway B probably has a total cost of manufacture of nearly twice that of a Yamaha C6. But that in itself brings up an interesting point - Yamaha now has introduced as you probably are aware, a model CF6 7 foot grand. And the MSRP of that piano leads me to believe that it likely costs Yamaha about what it costs Steinway to make a B. I could be wrong, but I doubt it - would be the first time since 1973 or so. (just a little joke there)

So - it just costs a lot to make good stuff. The last 5% in quality may cost an additonal 40% to achieve. Just does.

Now I gotta go practice some more Bach. Wish you were here to give me a few pointers.

I'm no piano manufacturing expert but I believe that the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs are vastly different for any item that is hand made in the US or Europe and a product that's mass produced in Asia - particularly China and Indonesia. I would be amazed if the were within 200-300% of each other - again I'm not a manufacturing expert, but things like sand casting instead of vacuum casting of plates, superior woods, felts, leathers, strings, hammers, etc are far, far more expensive than cheapies. Packing 10 to 20 pianos in a crate and shipping them is far more efficient than shipping one or a few at a time. Warehousing? Don't really know about that. Machine costs? All I know is I can go to Harbor Freight and every cheap tool they have there is made in China. And then there's labor - you aren't trying to imply that Chinese wages are in anywhere near the same ballpark as European or American labor are you? Labor costs are on the rise in China but have not even approached first world rates as of yet.

Lester, Wurlitzer, Chickering. What's A Brand Worth?? So you say that just maybe, just mayby a brand might be able to be Purchased in the mid five figure range?? Let's just suppose that we could purchase the Chickering Name and that our goal and disire was to have a premium say 5'7" grand produced based on the original specifications that made Chickering the Desirable premium piano that it Once was, but at a more accessable price. Where would you turn to. Asia, Eastern Europe, Some parts of the Americas?? What should this piano sell for, considering all of the excellent observations and points made in the previous post.

I wouldn't think Wurlitzer or Chickering would be realistic as they have very recent Baldwin associations and most likely Baldwin still owns the names. I'd bet Baldwin wouldn't let them go for any type of realistic price. Lester on the other hand....

Weeeeelll stanger things have happened. Just for fun WHAT IF???You never know if a manufactuer just might get motivated to get in gear and produce such a piano even if they don't let the name go. Could induce new vitality and interest in their portfolio of exsiting products.

You assumptions and positions show a lack of knowledge about the piano industry and piano manufacturing. You manifest that lack of knowledge in so may ways that it leads me to take your advice and walk away.

This discussion is sophomoric, so I'm outta here. I'd advise other to take Derulux's advice as well.

Sam wasn't addressing you! It was to one the responders who has created some ill will in the hijacked part of your thread.

The Lester has me ROTFL. You would need to contact Cinnamonbear and see if he wants to go into partnership with you to produce the piano. I believe he holds the copyright. The Lester name would be available for about $5.00. I would love to see a brand new Lester Concert Grand priced for about $150.000.

I wouldn't think Wurlitzer or Chickering would be realistic as they have very recent Baldwin associations and most likely Baldwin still owns the names. I'd bet Baldwin wouldn't let them go for any type of realistic price. Lester on the other hand....

Pianolance,

I completely understand what you are saying. Considering Baldwin's current problems, they might consider unloading the Wurlitzer, Chickering, and even Hamilton names. I would guess a high price tag would go with them. My guess, and an OOM guess, would be at least 1/2 Mil.

Firstly, I apologize for the length of this post. I tried to address everyone's thoughts and concerns the best I could. If you look in the quotes for your name, you can skip to my direct response to each of you.

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty

"Are all" and "Should all be" are entirely different concepts and change the whole premise.

Entirely. Hence, my retraction.

Quote:

As pointed out often, labor costs are a significant factor and subject to many complex factors.

Interestingly, this is getting very close to a discussion of what my "day job" actually is. But, since no one asked, or at least everyone seems to have assumed I know nothing about the topic, I have stayed silent. But, you are correct. Thank you for repeating something I also said.

Quote:

Material costs "are all" or "should all be" applies to neither premise. Check the costs of graded lumber and you will find significant differences.

Here, you both have me and don't have me. You have me because I am not a sourcing expert for lumber. I have considerable expertise with international supply chain and distribution of it, but not the actual sourcing. However, I am not completely sure that this would cause a six-figure difference. I have very few of these industry-specific facts available to me. What I do know is business and marketing/branding. So I have been speaking more on a macro scale and to those points than trying to get down into the small details. If you do have a list of prices that more than one manufacturer pays for each of its piano's parts, I would actually be interested in doing this type of analysis.

Quote:

The Steinway 'brand' has proven itself to be one of the very finest pianos ever built. It is able to command the price.

This is my exact point, and I thank you for backing me up on it.

Originally Posted By: Furtwangler

Well, I don't consider your posts a diatribe.

Thank God, my friend.. it seems you are the only one.

Quote:

the difference in manufacturing cost alone between a Japanese 7 foot grand and a Steinway B may be as much as 100%. Said another way, a Steinway B probably has a total cost of manufacture of nearly twice that of a Yamaha C6.

This might be true, and I am sure if you are an industry expert, than you must know it to be true. I've never debated this point. What I've said--and I think I said it in my amended statement better than in my original, since there was some confusion--is that there is really no reason for such a large gap. A gap, yes, largely because of tolerance specifications, which I previously mentioned (but some people have yet to grasp that I did, indeed, mention it). But not as large a gap as retail prices seem to indicate.

Quote:

I could be wrong, but I doubt it - would be the first time since 1973 or so. (just a little joke there)

HAHA Any chance you remember what you were so wrong about?

Quote:

Now I gotta go practice some more Bach. Wish you were here to give me a few pointers.

On Bach? Are you nuts?! haha Me giving you pointers on Bach would be about as worthwhile as listening to heavy metal in order to understand Mozart.

Originally Posted By: Pianolance

I'm no piano manufacturing expert but I believe that the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs are vastly different for any item that is hand made in the US or Europe and a product that's mass produced in Asia - particularly China and Indonesia. I would be amazed if the were within 200-300% of each other - again I'm not a manufacturing expert, but things like sand casting instead of vacuum casting of plates, superior woods, felts, leathers, strings, hammers, etc are far, far more expensive than cheapies. Packing 10 to 20 pianos in a crate and shipping them is far more efficient than shipping one or a few at a time. Warehousing? Don't really know about that. Machine costs? All I know is I can go to Harbor Freight and every cheap tool they have there is made in China. And then there's labor - you aren't trying to imply that Chinese wages are in anywhere near the same ballpark as European or American labor are you? Labor costs are on the rise in China but have not even approached first world rates as of yet.

As far as I can tell, you are completely correct in your assumptions. And no, I am absolutely not trying to imply that Chinese wages equal American wages. In fact, I am implying the exact opposite.

Originally Posted By: Steve Cohen

Derulux.

You assumptions and positions show a lack of knowledge about the piano industry and piano manufacturing. You manifest that lack of knowledge in so may ways that it leads me to take your advice and walk away.

This discussion is sophomoric, so I'm outta here. I'd advise other to take Derulux's advice as well.

Steve, I've always considered your opinion and thoughts in high regard. I am sure that we are much closer to the same page than not, but our methods of arriving at those conclusions are somewhat different, and if we had a chance to sit down and discuss it, we would probably both see each others' points. I agree that things get muddled when so many voices and divergent threads emerge in one discussion. Sadly, you learned my own lesson before I could.

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

The only names that still have "value" might be Chickering, and Baldwin Hamilton..Wurlizer makes me think of "organ" not pianos and as for Lester you'd have to reach way back,and even then people would say ..who?

You might be showing your tender age. Just a guess. Late 50's there were TV piano ads which used the phrase "Gee Dad. It's a Wurlitzer!" It's right up there with "Plop-plop, Fizz-fizz" and the glorious "Where's the beef?"

The pianos never carried the "Mighty" tag, however. But at the ballpark or arena, it sure was where Wurlitzer Ruled!

Maybe the reaction to you is not about what you have to say, but how you say it. Over, and over, and over, and inferring that other's opinions are not of value or merit.

Until you changed you phrasing, you argued all that you had stated based on the original phrasing. It negates all of your previous comments of which you were adamant.

We do not agree on the value of a Steinway. I accept it and you think it is way overpriced for the reasons you have previously stressed.

I understand why Sam made his frustrated exit.

I have gone back to the original question from the OP, until your rebuttal butted in, that is.

I think that you are correct. I was very surprised, shocked even, at the wild ideas that people insinuated my statements suggested, when no such suggestion ever existed. I am glad you have persisted with me to help clear the air, though. I know going "against the grain" gets you splinters, so I was prepared for some of it, but I do not now, nor have I ever intended either animosity or arrogance.

To your point about Steinways: It's not so much that I think they are overpriced cart blanche. I think this is still a misconstruing of my thoughts, for which only I can take blame, since only I can explain what it is I mean to say. And if that explanation is lacking, then shame on me.

I do feel that Steinway has employed very specific and highly successful marketing techniques for a luxury product that allow them to charge the price that they charge. So, in effect, the "branding" concept I discussed at the earliest (though I think we both admit I might have had a better way to inject the thought to the discussion). It's not so much that they have to do things they way they do, but that they choose to.

I think that some people inferred that I mean to say a Steinway is equivalent to a Wurlitzer. Absolutely not. I mean only to compare Steinway to Steinway. And I didn't pick that up at the start of the conversation, which was my fault.

Edited by Derulux (08/07/1208:06 PM)

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.

You seem to be confusing your concept of this thread with what was intended by the OP.

The references to Wurlitzer were about it's value as a trademark stencil. To revive a name and market it anew. Other than in your specific intrepretation of this thread, a Wurlitzer was not being compared to Steinway. The concept of marketing a new incarnation of the piano using the reputation of the old was what was being asked. And quite specifically, how much is the trademark worth? The trademark was what was of interest, not the cost of Samick compared to Steingraeber.

Baldwin tried it with "Wurlitzer" and "Chickering" and the results were not profitable. They are no longer in production.

And just think..we only had 3 stations the 4th public tv, had basically nothing back then,one day they came up with this new fangled thing called UHF a seperate box with 3 more stations (yipee)..so in addition to rabbit ears you had a little round antenna! ha LOL!

You seem to be confusing your concept of this thread with what was intended by the OP.

The references to Wurlitzer were about it's value as a trademark stencil. To revive a name and market it anew. Other than in your specific intrepretation of this thread, a Wurlitzer was not being compared to Steinway. The concept of marketing a new incarnation of the piano using the reputation of the old was what was being asked. And quite specifically, how much is the trademark worth? The trademark was what was of interest, not the cost of Samick compared to Steingraeber.

Baldwin tried it with "Wurlitzer" and "Chickering" and the results were not profitable. They are no longer in production.

I'm not so sure. The reason Baldwin failed is because of the perceived value of the brand name "Wurlitzer" and "Chickering". They weren't worth the price tag on the piano, so nobody bought them. The brand name has to be rehabilitated first, because ultimately (with a luxury item like a piano in particular) the value of the product is the value of the brand name.

That was the original direction I commented in. Everything else is in response to other posters.

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.